Is GM's EV1 Still the Best Electric Car Ever?

Even today, if you want to make an engineer's blood boil, there's a good chance you can do it by mentioning General Motors' EV1, produced from 1996 to 1999. For many, the subject conjures up images of truckloads of cars being needlessly hauled off to the crusher.

A significant number of engineers, who have torn down and evaluated electric cars, see the EV1 as a monument to the art of automotive engineering. If it used today's lithium-ion batteries, they say, no electric vehicle ever made could touch it.

"When it comes to pure electric vehicles, the EV1 is still the best that's been built in the last 15 years," noted one engineer, who didn't want to be named for competitive reasons, but who has torn down and evaluated every production EV that's been made since the early 1990s. "The EV1 was a fully-developed, all-around vehicle. Today, no one has the resources to do what GM did."

For those who don't remember it well, here's a short primer on the EV1. Introduced by General Motors (GM) in 1996, the EV1 was a two-seat electric coupe that was designed from the ground up with the best technologies available at the time. It was one of the first vehicles to use an aluminum spaceframe, which made it about 40 percent lighter than steel.

Engineers then joined the frame with aerospace-grade structural adhesives, thereby eliminating many of the welds. They also made body panels from composites -- again, to cut weight -- and added a lightweight suspension with help from Lotus Engineering. Moreover, the vehicle had the most advanced power electronics available at the time, and GM engineers spent thousands of hours matching the EV1's AC induction motors to the vehicle.

Materials weren't the only way of boosting the EV1's energy efficiency, however. Design engineers used low-rolling-resistance tires and sculpted the body down to drag coefficient of 0.195, which is still considered by Wikipedia to be the lowest in the history of production cars. By comparison, the Chevy Volt reportedly has a Cd of 0.28 and the Nissan Leaf, 0.29. Both of those figures are better than the auto industry's average of 0.35 to 0.45, but still far short of the EV1's.

The result was that a modified EV1 captured an electric vehicle speed record in 1997, hitting 183mph.

GM's EV1 still has the best drag coefficient of any production car to date, at 0.195. (Photo courtesy of GM.)

"It's better than the Leaf," our contact told us. "And the Tesla -- which is certainly faster but costs $120,000 -- still is far less sophisticated that the EV1."

There is, of course, the issue of the battery. The EV1's Gen2 version employed a nickel-metal hydride pack, which had an energy density of about 90Wh/kg. In comparison, today's lithium-ion batteries reach 140Wh/kg. The higher energy density enables today's EVs to cut weight.

Even there, however, is still a small debate. The EV1 supposedly offered 160 miles of range (a doubtful figure, by today's EPA criteria), but even if we cut that down to 100 miles, it's still more than Nissan Leaf's. What's more, many engineers don't like the Tesla Roadster pack, which employs 6,800 "18650" batteries (each slightly larger than an AA), connected in series.

Either way, they say, the EV1's supremacy would be beyond debate if it had today's battery packs. "The new battery would mean the EV1 could be about 500 lbs lighter (than the others) for the same range," our contact said. "But aside from that, the EV1 wouldn't need to change. It was that advanced."

To be sure, not everyone agrees with that assessment. As late as 2008, Time Magazine placed the EV1 on its list of "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time." What's more, many EV1 detractors have reasonably pointed out that GM spent between $80,000 and $100,000 per vehicle, which is a debatable figure, but one that nevertheless suggests that a comparison of the EV1 and the Leaf isn't appropriate. Finally, there's the issue of size -- the EV1 seated just two people.

Still, it's hard to argue that the vehicle's engineering was far ahead of its time.

"Microelectronics, miniaturization, better batteries -- all of those things have happened since the introduction of the EV1," our contact said. "But the results don't indicate that we've gotten that much out of it. Yes, we've got better batteries today, but imagine what the EV1 could have done with those batteries."

T.J.: Unfortunately, it's going to be mighty hard to find an EV1 for a head-to-head comparison. At least one national lab has one and there are a few others that were bought up for the purpose of preserving the remainders, but GM crushed most of them.

If the EV1 was such a great design and beats most of the vehicles that are now being offered, why not just retrieve the old drawings, which are surely archived, maybe bring back a few of the original designers, some of whom are retired but would probably be willing to consult for a while, and put the car in production?

Or was this a bad idea in 1998, the same way that the electric vehicles of the 21st century are a bad idea? My hunch is that the same fate that faced the EV1 awaits the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf.

I am currently assembling a modern version of the EV1 with my project 'Silver Streak'. Powered by a saved-from-the-crusher new EV1 motor/transaxle & Rinehart Motion Systems inverter, and with 71.5 kWh of Dow Kokam cells, this full electirc Honda Insight will do 400+ miles @ 55 mph, with 0-60 in the 6.9 - 7.1 second range. Please visit my blog for the full story about the EV1 & Silver Streak at www.plasmaboyracing.com/blog/
See Ya...John Wayland

Aesthetics are definitely a matter of opinion, and I would disagree that the EV1 is a pig. It may not be the best looking car, but it has it's own charm, function over form is definitely welcome, and its unique. In my opinion, the Aztec or the Juke are by far the ugliest cars ever produced, yet people still buy/bought them.

Commuting by bicycle almost everyday, I know how much air resistance and rolling resistance make a difference. When you have to exert the energy to propel yourself, you start to notice things like that a lot more. Riding upright vs tucked in makes a huge difference (and that doesn't change the CdA by that much) or drafting behind a truck (I can easily ride 30mph). I wish car manufacturers were more bold to design cars more for function than for form.

GM didn't crush the cars for the fun of it (or for the same reason the oil companies bought out the electric trolly's only to shut them down ;)-

I'd have to assume they crushed them because of some hidden flaw / liability. Perhaps they discovered the glue that held it together wouldn't over time or collision. Or perhaps the batteries could explode under the right circumstances or collision (the Pinto of electric cars?).

As for going green, I have a Ford Fusion gas-electric Hybrid that gives me the best of all worlds (good mileage for my work commute, mid-sized sedan for long haul trips, decent performance). Only the rich or those with low expectations can afford fully electric or electric-gas hybrids.

Apparently, when Toyota saw GM investing so much into electric vehicles, it prompted them to start their own development, resulting in the Prius. After which, Toyota was viewed as a savior for the green movement, while GM stupidly canceled the EV1 and bought HUMMER. I shrug and wonder about all the stupid things GM has done...

Didn't a lot of the little cars in the mid 90s take on this look? Besides... Fords Explorer and other SUVs were a hot item then. EV1 sounds very expensive and questionable how well the body style would have been received. Maybe GM didn't want to do what Ford did and sink a ton of cash into an edsel that was totally the opposite from what people wanted.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

A well-known automotive consultant who did an extensive teardown of BMW’s i3 all-electric car said its design is groundbreaking in multiple ways. “We’ve torn down about 450 cars, and we’ve never analyzed anything like this before.”

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.